The
following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as the author is
properly acknowledged
and the material is not altered, edited or sold.

Besides attacking radiometric dating and other aspects of geochronology,
young-Earth creationist (YEC) John Woodmorappe (1999, p. 16, etc.) accuses
geochronologists of being 'biased', 'unscientific' and even 'engaging' in Orwellian
Newspeak' as described in George Orwell's book, 1984. At the
same time, Woodmorappe (1999) would have us believe that the 'careful scientific
investigators' of the Earth's past are YECs. Woodmorappe's (1999, p. 2, 5, Table 1
on p. 6, 94, etc.) overall views of young-Earth creationism, its critics, and radiometric
dating are summarized by several audacious claims, which include:

Young-Earth
creationism is in the process of being rigorously tested for overall validity, radiometric
dating methods have not (p. 6, 8).

Young-Earth
creationism does not claim to be dogmatically factual, radiometric dating methods do (p
6).

So, how true or relevant are each of these claims? Who is REALLY using
Orwellian Newspeak, geochronologists or Woodmorappe?

Young-Earth creationism is in the process of being rigorously tested for
overall validity, radiometric dating methods have not.

Even before any research begins, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are convinced
that Genesis has told them the 'Truth' about the origin and history of the Earth (as
examples: The Necessity
for Believing in Six Literal Days; YEC
Tas Walker's website;
Morris, 2000; Vardiman, 2000). Clearly for YECs, the 'purpose' of geology,
cosmology, and other historical sciences is to simply confirm their Bible interpretations
and maybe fill in some additional details on how 'God did it'. When scientific data
flatly contradict the literal interpretations of Genesis, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, YECs
automatically reject the data. Because YECs assume that 'scripture' can never be
wrong, they are convinced that ANY opposing scientific data 'must be wrong.' This
anti-scientific YEC view is beautifully illustrated by 'The Scientific Method... The
Creationist Method' at Frank Steiger's Creationism
and Pseudosciencewebsite.
What's worse, YECs are even proud of their stagnant, medieval and dogmatic views (see:
"Science" or the Bible?).

The question then arises, how can young-Earth creationism be fully and 'rigorously
tested' if YECs are convinced that young-Earth creationism has 'The Answers' even before
the testing begins? That is, how can the claims of young-Earth creationism be
appropriately evaluated when YECs readily admit that they are willing to invoke miracles
to protect young-Earth creationism from failure (e.g., Vardiman, 2000; Humphreys 2000;
Kofahl, 1977 on the 'pre-Flood vapor canopy'; Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998, p. 530 on
'creation week' plutons; etc.)? Considering that the human imagination has no
boundaries, YECs have no limits in their abilities to prop up their views with miraculous
excuses.

One of the requirements of an authentic scientific test is to consider the
possibility that the hypothesis and its associated ideas will fail and to admit it. Every
time scientists enter the laboratory or the field, they must be prepared to face utter
failure and literally go back to the blackboard to test alternative hypotheses. Good
examples are the obvious failure to date the Pahrump Group 'Diabase' with the Rb-Sr method
(Wasserburg et al., 1964; also see: Woodmorappe Can't
Read Rb-Sr Diagrams, the frequently unsuccessful U-Th-He dating method
(Krauskopf and Bird, 1995, p. 247), and the widespread inability of platinum electrodes to
provide reliable Eh measurements on water samples (Drever, 1997, p. 136). Unlike
YECs, scientists are unwilling to cheat science and invoke magic or 'god-of-the-gaps' to
prop up their hypotheses or methods if they fail to explain reality. Sometimes
samples or entire analytical methods must be discarded. Often, nature's mysteries
(such as the 'missing'
solar neutrinos) aren't easily solved and scientists must continue their
research and patiently wait for viable natural explanations.

The creationists of the early 19th century had the courage to reject young-Earth
creationism and 'Flood geology' when they saw that the abundant evidence from nature
refuted literal biblical interpretations (Young, 1982, p. 41-59; Wilson, 1983). Will the
YECs of the 21st century also be willing to consider the same course of action? Will they
ever have the courage to even consider the possibility that their fundamental
interpretations of Genesis may be the problem with their repeated 'scientific'
failures? (For an excellent example of the utter failure of YEC 'geology' to explain
reality, see: Dr
Tasman Walker's Flood Geology Model). Will YECs ever realize that their
biblical dogma is a great hindrance to them really studying and understanding nature? Are
YECs really willing to fairly test their ideas without hiding behind flimsy and groundless
miracles? I doubt it.

In response, Dr.
Plaisted criticizes Harland et al. (1990) for not containing any more than
800 dates, which are used to calibrate the boundaries between the periods in their
geologic time scale. However, as indicated in Harland et al. (1990) and especially
their references, the validity of these 800 or so dates have been confirmed with
biostratigraphic studies and even magnetic data. Furthermore, many of the dates were
verified with multiple radiometric methods. To be exact, Harland et al. (1990, p.
79) were very conservative and omitted many dates with less than stringent analytical and
stratigraphic precision:

'A large number of items that have at one time or another been proposed as time
scale constraints have been excluded from the list. The criteria for exclusion
include rejection by the original authors, excessive uncertainty in date or stratigraphic
position (generally those that exceed 3 to 4% 1 sigma errors or that lie more than two to
five time scale subdivisions away from any likely time scale). Items that are
clearly anomalous with respect to the main body of data have also been excluded [i.e., any
outliers].'

Also:

'Our approach is a somewhat "democratic" one. As many time scale
items as possible are allowed to influence the calibration. No single point is given
exceptional weight. The result is a compromise that accommodates the maximum number
of reported facts, tempered by common sense and experience.'

Unfortunately, by only quoting part of Harland et al. (1990, p. 79),
Dr. Plaisted fails to
properly represent Harland et al.'s meticulous approach to data quality control.
Clearly, these 800 or so dates are more than enough to sink young-Earth creationism.

In an earlier essay,
I discussed in detail one example from Harland et al.'s (1990) list, the Beemerville
Nepheline Syenite. However, this was not good enough for Dr. Plaisted. He
wanted me to provide more summaries from Harland et al. (1990) and their references.
However, Dr. Plaisted is free to personally investigate the 799 or so other examples for
himself. I don't want to spoon-feed him. Although Harland et al. (1990) has
limited discussions and mostly consists of data tables, everything is well-referenced and
Dr. Plaisted can evaluate the details in Harland et al.'s (1990) references. Nevertheless,
I'm not persuaded that any amount of evidence will convince most YECs that their Genesis
interpretations are wrong. If Harland et al. (1990) contained 8,000; 80,000; 800,000; or
even 8,000,000 high-quality calibration dates instead of 800 or so, it would not make any
difference to most YECs.

There are also countless other dates that are consistent with fossil and/or
magnetic data WITHIN the various periods of the time scale (for a few examples, see:
Baadsgaard et al., 1988, 1993; Montanari et al., 1985, Queen et al., 1996, and Foster et
al., 1989). Unless YECs are willing to groundlessly invoke a massive dishonest
conspiracy among geochronologists, appeal to the financial and scientific nonsense of
Woodmorappe's
Crap Shoot, invoke preposterous miracles to explain away the dates (Vardiman
et al., 2000), or claim that geochronologists are universally stupid, YECs have no choice
but to admit that radiometric dating has been tested and passes the tests for precision
and accuracy. Dr. Andrew MacRae summarizes the situation at
Radiometric Dating and the Geologic
Time Scale:

'Skeptics of conventional geology might think scientists would expect, or at least
prefer, every date to be perfectly consistent with the current geological time scale, but
realistically, this is not how science works. The age of a particular sample, and a
particular geological time scale, only represents the current understanding, and science
is a process of refinement of that understanding. In support of this pattern, there is an
unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the time scale as the dataset gets
larger and more precise... [reference omitted]. If something were seriously wrong with the
current geologic time scale, one would expect inconsistencies to grow in number and
severity, but they do not.'

Young-Earth creationism does not claim to be dogmatically
factual, radiometric dating methods do.

Dogma may be defined as an established principle, tenet or doctrine, which is not
open for discussion or dispute. Typically, there is little or no historical or
scientific evidence to support dogmatic claims. Many people accept dogmatic beliefs
on the basis of faith, authoritarian decrees, tradition and/or popular opinion. Of
course, skeptics and other rationalists find any type of dogmatism to be repugnant.

To the untrained mind, well-understood and long-verified scientific claims may
seem 'dogmatic'. For example, YECs often mistakenly refer to the ancient age of the
Earth, the existence of its crustal plates, and even heliocentricism as some sort of
'religious dogma' just because these well-established principles may conflict with their
supposedly 'true' and 'authoritative' biblical interpretations. However, there is a
great difference between an unproven dogma (i.e., Genesis) that has NEVER been challenged
by its defenders and scientific data that were vigorously tested and verified beyond a
reasonable doubt decades or even centuries ago (such as studies that have determined the
age, shape, size and orbital mechanics of the Earth). There comes a point when
explanations are so reliable, predictable and well-understood that further testing and
verification are simply a waste of scarce time and money. Furthermore, no amount of
evidence will ever convince die-hard YECs as long as it conflicts with their scriptural
interpretations. So, rather than endlessly engaging with the closed-minded or
accepting the pseudoscientific claims of young-Earth creationism which are based on faulty
reasoning, bad data, misquotations, empty arguments, and unproven miracles (for some
examples, see: The
Main Issues in the Science/Creation Debate at 'No Answers in Genesis'), the
vast majority of scientific researchers simply prefer to proceed onto more worthwhile
topics. Because scientists typically refuse to keep running and rerunning their
experiments until they conform to the YEC views of Genesis, the religious right tends to
label these scientists as 'dogmatists.'

Certainly, anyone is free to reject any scientific reality that conflicts with
his/her political or religious views. However, the individual must realize that
his/her religious or political convictions are the real dogma and not scientific theories
that were verified decades or even centuries ago. No rational person can expect
scientists to keep repeating experiments and spending money until the results conform to
YEC interpretations of Genesis or the narrow agendas of other religious or political
sects. Science is not a slave of politics or religion.

In contrast to well-established science, the 'biblical' foundation of young-Earth
creationism is perfectly described by the definition of dogma. YECs are so confident
(dogmatic) about the accuracy of the literal interpretations of Genesis that they are
unwilling to accept ANY data that contradicts it. While the age of the Earth was
debated and settled long ago in science, the authority and accuracy of the Bible has NEVER
been challenged or even fairly discussed by YECs. YECs simple use questionable
statements from Jesus and Paul in the New Testament to defend a literal interpretation of
Genesis or pseudoscientific 'evidences' to support their views (for a few examples of YEC
pseudoscience, see: The
Main Issues in the Science/Creation Debateat 'No Answers in Genesis', Buddika's 300
Creationist Lies, the Talk.origin Archive, and
Strahler, 1987). Indeed, it's not unusual for YECs to use the old circular argument
of 'Jesus "said" that the Bible is infallible (Matthew 5:18) and Jesus' words
are infallible because they're in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16).'

The cultic dogma of contemporary young-Earth creationism becomes obvious if anyone
in the YEC 'fold' happens to question the 'sacred' interpretations of Genesis. If
the 'dissident' doesn't recant, she/he is immediately expelled from YEC organizations and
treated like a heretic. For example, see Glenn Morton's sad testimony at
Why I left Young-Earth
Creationism and especially the tragic and acidic onslaught from Woodmorappe's
mouth (see James 3).
Scientists can certainly be heated in debates with their fellow colleagues, but at least
we don't excommunicate each other as heretics. Furthermore, unlike various 'Christian'
factions in Northern Ireland, Punctuated Equilibrists and Neo-Darwinians aren't killing
each other in the streets because of their differing views of biology.

Because young-Earth creationism is a dogma, the purpose of YEC 'research' is not
to explain how nature works, but to simply locate information that may be used to prop up
its dictatorial biblical doctrines. If the Bible accidentally hints at a scientific
discovery, YEC tabloids and Internet websites loudly proclaim that the Bible 'provided'
this scientific information long ago (e.g., Morris, 1986). That is, the Bible was
'right all along.' If the data utterly refute young-Earth creationism, the
information is ignored or slandered (e.g., Woodmorappe, 1979, 1999) for as long as
possible. If YECs can no longer readily defend their flawed biblical interpretations
(such as interpreting the 'pillars' of the Earth in Job 9:6 as being literal features),
rather than admitting that their biblical views are myths, YECs use their boundless
imaginations and maybe a few miracles to twist the interpretations to comply with the
discoveries of modern science (for example, the 'pillars' of Job 9:6 may somehow be
incorporated into modern plate tectonics). The fundamentalists then proclaim that
the Bible had these 'answers all along.' The YEC non-falsifiable approach to
biblical interpretation is no better than a rigged 'tails, I win; heads, you lose'
carnival game.

History is full of examples (geocentricism, demonic possession, witchcraft, etc.),
where the bible literalists have claimed that they 'know the Truth.' When the
literalists acted on their ignorant and narrow-minded dogma, the results were disastrous
(e.g., witch hunts and the crusades). Unquestionably, scientists have also made
mistakes and, certainly, some scientific endeavors have yielded tragic consequences (e.g.,
thalidomide and chemical weapons). Nevertheless, scientists typically correct each
other's mistakes. In contrast, rather than the YECs correcting themselves, it's been
scientists that have repeatedly corrected the countless blunders of 'biblical science'
over the years or found superior scientific explanations to mythical biblical
interpretations (e.g., geocentricism, 'pillars of the Earth,' Carl Baugh's fish tooth, the
Paluxy 'human' footprints). Also, biblical critics have had a leading role in
repeatedly exposing the moral fallacies of biblical fundamentalism (e.g., killing
'witches,' Bob Jones Senior's advocacy of segregation, the support of slavery in the 19th
century southern Bible Belt, etc.). (Also see:
Woodmorappe's
Subjective Creationism and Not So Subjective Radiometric Dating).
Clearly, science advances, whereas young-Earth creationism is chained to archaic biblical
interpretations that can only be twisted so far before they become untenable.

Because the courts generally view creationism as a religious sect, YECs have had a
lot of difficulty attempting to legally push creationism into science classrooms. In
an attempt to get around this problem, Henry Morris and other ICR YECs earlier claimed
that there are 'two independent varieties' of creationism: 'biblical' and
'scientific.' Supposedly, 'biblical creationism' is based on the Bible, whereas
'scientific creationism' is 'independent' of any religious doctrine and is 'entirely
based' on the 'scientific evidence' for a 'young' Earth and a 'worldwide deluge.'
However, few scientists or courts accepted this scam. Even YEC E.H. Andrews (1986,
p. 49-51) admitted that 'scientific' creationism is not scientific and is totally
subsidiary to 'biblical' creationism. Andrews (1986, p. 49-50) states:

'You may say, "Just a moment! Surely the entire scope of scientific creationism
is not limited to attacking evolution? Does it not provide positive evidences for
creation?" I find it very difficult to discover any such positive evidence. I
doubt whether there will ever be any truly positive proof of creation that is scientific
in character. An act of creation represents a discontinuity in natural law and
therefore we can never make any comment about it by scientific methodology. It is by
definition miraculous, lying outside of the corpus of science. It cannot be
addressed in scientific terms.'

Also, (Andrews, 1986, p. 51) states:

'Creation science has an important role, but it is a subsidiary and supportive role
to that of biblical creation.'

Andrews' comments are extremely honest and valuable in demonstrating that
'scientific' creationism is an oxymoron and does not meet the qualifications of science.

In contrast to the dogmatic and cultic foundation of young-Earth creationism, the
only principle in science that might be considered 'dogmatic' is that scientists are not
allowed to invoke magic and other supernatural shortcuts (e.g., 'God did it!!') to solve
the mysteries of nature. Now, science does NOT deny or confirm the existence
of the supernatural. Science simply says that miracles cannot and should not fit
into the scientific method. That is, scientists use natural explanations, and not
the supernatural, to understand how chemical reactions produce new plastics in the
laboratory. Scientists would rather say 'I don't know' than rely on miracles, which have
no track record of reliability.

Over the years, science has had great success in explaining lightning, thunder,
snow flakes, diseases, the origin of elements (Faure, 1998), volcanoes, radioactive decay,
and countless other natural phenomena without resorting to miracles or supernatural
beings. Scientists also recognize that rocks are ancient because of their mineralogy
and chemistry. Unlike YECs, scientists aren't willing to throw away good chemical,
textural, structural, and mineralogical data to embrace stories about talking snakes and
magical fruit. If we don't invoke Voodoo curses to explain deaths or goblins to explain
missing car keys, why invoke miracles to explain the origin of rocks? Also,
when I take my malfunctioning car to the mechanic, I want a mundane (and hopefully
inexpensive) explanation for the problem. I would tow or even push my car to another
garage if I were told that my car was 'possessed by demons.' If we don't use
supernatural explanations in our courtrooms, car garages, and hospitals, why should
biologists and geologists use them? Also, see: It'll Take a Miracle
to Save their Science and
Young-Earth Creationists
Dull Occam's Razor. Geochronology is controlled by a 'ruling theory' mentality,
which discourages scientific criticism. Young-Earth creationism isn't.

Science, including geochronology (e.g., Dalrymple vs. Renne in Kerr, 1995),
thrives in conflict and controversy. Every scientist dreams of overthrowing a popular
theory, becoming famous and winning a Nobel Prize. Furthermore, the history of
science illustrates that change should not be feared, but welcomed as an adventure.
Old beliefs may be destroyed, but new and more exciting ones will emerge.

Certainly, maverick scientists will face strong opposition and skepticism if they
oppose popular scientific ideas, but that's how science works. It is the duty of all
scientists to be skeptical and to vigorously challenge any new data and hypotheses.
New scientific ideas are only accepted after vigorous investigations. Critical
evaluations also continue during the peer-review process as the results are being
considered for publication. I can speak from personal experience that the
peer-review process for scientific journals is often brutal. However, only through
vigorous testing and careful evaluations will the most robust and accurate hypotheses
survive and develop into theories.

Now, certainly, there have been cases of scientists improperly rejecting valid
data and having unfair biases against new ideas. Nevertheless, successful theories,
such as plate tectonics, don't go away just because they may be unpopular with the old
establishment. Instead, their ability to make predictions and explain observations
tends to attract additional supporters. Therefore, these powerful theories survive
and often become crucial to various disciplines. For example, the theory of plate
tectonics now has important applications in petroleum exploration, ore prospecting,
paleontology, biological evolution, paleoclimatology, glacial geology, tectonics, and
volcanism. At the same time, healthy skepticism in science has debunked 'cold
fusion', astrological charts, young-Earth creationism, and, most importantly, a lot of
potentially dangerous medical quackery. Astrologers, psychics, YECs, water dowsers,
spiritual mediums, herbalists, folk practitioners, and many others claim to have
'scientific evidence' for their beliefs, but rarely do these claims withstand scientific
scrutiny.

There is little doubt that at least some YECs are afraid that they have invested
their lives in a worthless cause (1 Corinthians 15:19). Indeed, it is likely that
continued scientific discoveries in the cosmos and the fossil record will eventually bring
down the YEC church of cards and doom this 'faith' to extinction. Besides fearing
the death of their dogma, YEC leaders should fear what laypeople will do to them
financially once their nonsense is exposed. Additionally, just like geocentricism
and flat Earth doctrines, YECs have good reason to fear that their ideas and reputations
are destined to end up eternally damned and ridiculed in the junkyard of history.

Because individuals in the ICR, AiG and the Creation 'Research' Society (CRS) are
enslaved by a ruling dogma, they only accept employees, students and/or members that
conform to their narrow religious litmus test. That is, these YEC organizations only
accept participants that will swear allegiance to their sectarian 'statements of faith'
(for more details on the oaths and other 'statements of faith' that must be accepted by
any participants in these YEC organizations, see: Rats in RATE's
'Research'). In reality, these oath-takers are promising not to accept
ANY data that question their religious interpretations. Anyone with a science degree that
signs an oath of allegiance to a political or religious dogma forfeits their scientific
integrity and does not deserve to be called a scientist.

The pure hypocrisy and inaccuracy of Woodmorappe's (1999) statements about 'dogma'
and 'ruling theory mentalities' can be clearly seen if any of the employees of the
Institute for Creation 'Research' ever criticize young-Earth creationism or if members of
the Creation 'Research' Society refuse to sign their 'statements of faith.'
Obviously, if a young-Earth creationist wants to keep his/her membership in the CRS or
his/her job at the ICR or conservative Christian schools, he/she had better not advocate
any evidence that refutes the official Biblical interpretations of the Ruling
Fundamentalist Party. This dogmatic tyranny is anti-science at its worst. Clearly,
young-Earth creationism with its oaths and accusations of 'heresy' are no more scientific
and free of a dogmatic 'ruling theory mentality' than North Korea is a 'Democratic
People's Republic'.

In contrast, memberships in secular science societies (such as the Geological
Society of America) or becoming faculty members at secular universities and colleges do
not require taking any oath, pledge or signing any statement promising not to undermine
biological evolution, the Big Bang, plate tectonics, atomic theory, or Einstein's Theories
of Relativity. Conservatives, libertarians, atheists, Hindus, Islamics, Jews,
communists, liberals, left-wingers, gays, anarchists, and even YECs may join the
Geological Society of America and other secular science societies. Clearly, the
membership committee of the Geological Society of America doesn't care about the
political, religious, and sexual orientations of its members. In comparison, how many
conservative Jews and Moslems are members of the ICR or the CRS? Can a Jehovah's
Witness or Mormon become a 'faculty' member of the ICR? The only requirements to be
a good scientist are to honestly go WHEREVER the evidence demands, not allow religious or
political myths to undermine research and to only use natural explanations in hypotheses.

Young-Earth creationists (YECs) should use the multiple working
hypotheses so that they do not become prematurely committed to any one explanation over
another.

Scientists can minimize biases and avoid 'ruling theory mentalities' by using the
method of the multiple working hypotheses. Around 1890 the method of the multiple
working hypotheses was developed for scientific use by T.C. Chamberlin. However, the
method also has diverse applications outside of science and should be widely used by
people in other disciplines and in their personal lives. The purpose of the method is to
minimize and correct errors, and to prevent individuals from having unfair biases for or
against certain explanations. As a student, I learned an updated version of the method,
which states that when a person makes an observation in the field, laboratory or
elsewhere, he/she should immediately think of as many NATURAL explanations (hypotheses) as
possible to explain the observation. The explanations (plural) should be made on
site where the evidence can be observed and not left for contemplation back at the office
desk some time later. Next, he/she should design experiments and make measurements
to test the hypotheses. Each hypothesis is treated like a child and is only rejected
if the evidence demands it. As experiments and measurements progress, some
hypotheses might be eliminated, but others may be added to the list. At the end of the
research, the individual may have one viable explanation, six possible explanations or
none. The approach teaches the individual to be patient. The goal of science and
other research is not to find 'The True Answer,' but to evaluate the possibilities and see
what survives. In other words, this is 'survival of the fittest' among competing
hypotheses. Ideally, the method of the multiple working hypotheses encourages
patience and tolerance for alternative natural explanations, and an avoidance of 'pet
theories' or 'ruling hypotheses.' The approach is also meant to encourage
cooperation rather than conflict between people on research topics. That is, if a
colleague comes up with an alternative explanation, it is simply added to the list of
possibilities for further testing. That is, it becomes like an adopted child.

Some have criticized the method of the multiple working hypotheses as being
unrealistic, unworkable, too expensive and time-consuming (Johnson, 1990). Others
have noted that scientists often ignore the method (Locke, 1990). Although
individuals may not have the time or money to evaluate every hypothesis, together
different research institutions often can explore a great variety of explanations (Locke,
1990). For example, a number of hypotheses are being investigated for the cause(s)
of the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction, and not just the currently popular asteroid
impact hypothesis. The key to good science or any other discipline then is to keep
an open mind; evaluate a number of different natural hypotheses personally or by reviewing
the literature of other researchers; and recognize that natural events, such as
glaciations or mass extinctions, may have multiple causes.

In contrast to authentic science, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 94) only gives lip service
to the method of the multiple working hypotheses. Under young-Earth creationism ALL
multiple hypotheses must ultimately comply with YEC Genesis interpretations. So, how
can Woodmorappe (1999, p. 94) claim to support the method of the multiple working
hypotheses, when any hypothesis that conflicts with the ruling biblical dogma is
immediately aborted rather than judged on its own merit? How can YECs truly
advocate the use of multiple working hypotheses if they're not willing to question their
biblical interpretations? How can YECs embrace the scientific method and the
method of the multiple working hypotheses when they are willing to throw out any data that
challenges their biblical dogma on a 'worldwide Flood' and a 'young Earth'? Also,
how can any supernatural Bible-based 'hypotheses' be tested? How is the supernatural
measured in the field or laboratory? When do YECs decide to invoke a miracle or look
for a natural explanation during their 'investigations'? Clearly, in direct contradiction
to the approach of the method of the multiple working hypotheses, YECs have no interest in
investigating different natural explanations if they refute their religious
doctrines. While the method of the multiple working hypotheses demands patience,
tolerance, and a complete avoidance of 'religious short cuts', absolutist YECs too often
advocate the existence of only 'ONE True Divine Answer' to explain Genesis, politics,
social issues, nature and other topics.

Evangelicals that 'compromise' with the meaning of Genesis are
'steeped in rationalism.'

Many Christians, Jews and Moslems readily accept the reality of biological
evolution, the Big Bang, and an ancient Earth. The acceptance of scientific answers by
mainstream religious people greatly annoys YECs. However, rather than referring to
Christian old-Earth creationists or theistic evolutionists as 'heretics', Woodmorappe
(1999, p. 2, 5) is somewhat more 'religiously correct' and labels them as 'compromising
evangelicals that are steeped in rationalism'.

For YECs, 'rationalism' is the 'evil' philosophy of humanists and atheists.
In reality, a rationalist simply argues that only human reason and logic provide reliable
answers to social problems and the mysteries of nature. According to rationalists,
emotional gut feelings, 'inspired scriptures', 'spiritual inspiration', astrology charts,
'psychics', 'prophets', or 'voices' from supernatural beings are not dependable sources of
information. In contrast, YECs believe that 'Ultimate Truth' comes from the Bible
and prayer and not from human thinking.

The YEC approach to rationalism and the supernatural is often hypocritical. If
YECs really believe that it's suitable to invoke supernatural explanations in biology and
geology, why don't they advocate the use of the supernatural in courtrooms, forensic labs
and hospitals? Clearly, most people advocate rational explanations in their daily
lives and not the supernatural. That is, most people realize that bacteria and
viruses better explain diseases than demons. When a child gets sick, most of us call a
doctor before a faith healer or an exorcist. During the Salem Witch Trials of 300
years ago, it was not unusual for the trial's participants to invoke the presence of
witchcraft. Today, thanks to the Enlightenment, any defense attorney would be
disbarred if he/she argued that a demon and not the suspect committed the crime. Even the
Roman Catholic Church will consult psychologists if someone comes to them claiming to hear
the voice of the Virgin Mary. Whether we're dealing with a murder victim, thick salt
deposits, diseases, snowflakes, or craters on the Moon, viable explanations don't involve
gods, demons, Noah's Flood or Jack Frost. By attacking rationalism, Woodmorappe is being
irrational, inconsistent and unrealistic.

Within conservative Christian denominations, theistic evolutionists or old-Earth
creationists may suffer persecution and even excommunication at the hands of the YEC
majority. In many respects, YECs despise old-Earth creationists and theistic
evolutionists much more than secular evolutionists. YECs see secular evolutionists
as 'wolves in wolves clothing.' That is, YECs see the beliefs and actions of secular
evolutionists as being open and obvious. However, from the viewpoint of young-Earth
creationism, 'apostate' believers are much more dangerous to the YEC faithful because they
are 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.

I don't doubt that YECs sincerely believe that the 'devil' will 'use' Christians
that don't accept the YEC view of Genesis. However, rather than being 'wolves' or
'heretics', Old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists demonstrate that sincere
believers don't have to submit to the cultic and medieval control of YECs to be devout or
even biblical conservatives. Furthermore, it is very obvious that theistic
evolutionists and old-Earth creationists are serious threats to the ability of YEC leaders
to have power and control over their 'flock' and the ability of YECs to attract more
converts and financial support. In other words, Christian old-Earth creationists and
theistic evolutionists are telling people that they don't need to throw away their minds
and believe nutty medieval doctrines to be good Christians.

Long-age radiometric dating is supported by public monies, the
mass media and pushed onto 'unsuspected' children in schools. Young-Earth
creationism isn't.

The last refuge of any intellectually bankrupt fanatic is to claim that their goal
is to 'save' and 'protect' children. In contrast to legitimate groups that strive for the
welfare of children, YECs attempt to obtain public sympathy and support by portraying the
science of geochronology as 'brainwashing' and 'victimizing' children, whereas the
'heroic' YECs are there to 'save' innocent children from 'brainwashing', 'demonic
Darwinian doctrines', and 'hell fire'.

Certainly, Federal funding agencies, public schools, and the mass media support
geology, including an ancient Earth. This is because of the overwhelming evidence
FOR an ancient Earth (e.g., Baadsgaard et al., 1993; Strahler, 1987). Geologists and
the geologic time scale have a long and successful record of finding oil, valuable ore
deposits and presenting a coherent and logical view of the Earth's history, whereas
young-Earth creationism is an unrealistic and sectarian religious cult (e.g., Vardiman et
al., 2000), which is ultimately based on talking snakes and magical fruit.
Additionally, petroleum companies want scientists with a working knowledge of the geologic
time scale and not individuals that claim to find oil with Bibles, divining rods, or
'psychic vibrations'. That is, petroleum geologists are paid well for their ability
to interpret the geologic record with actualism (modern uniformitarianism) and not their
ability to interpret Genesis. Science deals with facts, young-Earth creationism
deals with denying facts by invoking groundless and superfluous ex nihilocreation miracles (for example, see:
It'll Take a Miracle to Save
their 'Science'. Indeed, no one should underestimate the ability of a
YEC to make up a creative excuse to explain away a failed Bible 'prophecy' or a section of
the geologic record that refutes his/her beliefs. The desperate mind can always invent
elaborate excuses. For some creative and far-fetched examples, see:
Apologetics Indexand How did
Judas Die? Would YECs REALLY accept these excuses if Mormons used them
to defend the Book of Mormon?

The National Science Foundation
uses public funds for authentic scientific research and not religious YEC ideas that will
always fall back on ad hoc miracles if their 'research' fails to
explain reality (Humphreys, 2000; Vardiman, 2000). Nevertheless, YEC organizations
obtain financial support from church-goers who rarely, if ever, take the time to read and
understand anything but YEC literature. As RELIGIOUS MINISTRIES, YEC organizations can
always apply for tax-exempt status. To their credit, the ICR and other YEC groups are
members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. Nevertheless, there
is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and
elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause.

Woodmorappe (1999, p. 5) claims that YECs are under no obligation to provide
alternative explanations for radiometric dating. Fine, unless they're willing to
propose alternative SCIENTIFIC hypotheses to explain radiometric dating within a YEC
timescale that don't involve unproven miracles, they should expect NO financial support
from the National Science Foundation and other sponsors of scientific research. It's easy
to comb the scientific literature for irrelevant quotations and pound the Bible, but to
construct sensible scientific hypotheses to explain how a young Universe could possible
exist is far beyond reason. It's also easy to hide behind groundless miracles when
the scientific data refute the YEC's fundamentalist claims. In the next few years,
we'll see if the YEC RATE
project can obtain any results to explain away radiometric dating without hiding behind
miracles or misquoting the scientific literature.

'Young-Earth Creation evangelism' is effective and
when Christians compromise with 'uniformitarianism' (actualism), they only hinder the
promotion of the Christian Gospel.

The Earth is old, round, and a speck in an unexceptional galaxy in a huge
Universe. Most YECs now recognize that we are in a minor corner of a large
three-dimensional Universe, yet they refuse to recognize that we are also in a minor part
of the fourth dimension - time. Whether YECs like it or not, they have to deal with this
reality. Like their flat-Earth spiritual brethren, YECs are only hurting their
religious cause by denying scientific reality. They must deal with the reality of an
ancient Earth, or they will ultimately vanish into ridicule and oblivion. Liberal,
moderate and even many evangelical Christians recognize this fact.

Woodmorappe (1999, p. 5) cites 'numerous cases' of people that have embraced
fundamentalist Christianity through 'creation evangelism'. However, Woodmorappe and
his YEC allies don't tell the public about the 'other side of the story'. There are
numerous YECs that have studied science or worked as geologists and the deception of
young-Earth creationism has driven them out of Christian fundamentalism and in many cases
entirely out of Christianity. Examples of ex-YECs include
Glenn Morton, a
petroleum exploration geophysicist and Christian, and
Jon Scott, the
founder of the now defunct 'Talk.Science' YEC web site. Also see:
What Harm is Done by
Creation Science? Furthermore, Babinski (1995) contains numerous
testimonies of people that left Christian fundamentalism for a variety of reasons. YECs
need to realize that by burying their heads in Genesis and denying the reality of nature,
they ultimately sabotage their cause. Woodmorappe and other YECs must recognize that the
falsehoods of young-Earth creationism will eventually be exposed and when they are, as in
any cult, the followers will become disillusioned and the many good things in Christianity
could be ultimately harmed. When YECs distort reality for Jesus, when they
believe that the ends justify the means, when they select or reject scientific data
according to their dogmatic interpretations of Genesis (e.g., Vardiman et al., 2000), they
are only damaging themselves and their cause. Distortions and falsehoods have no
place in any scientific, religious, political, business, government, or philosophical
pursuit. Mainstream Christians, which YEC fanatics treat like 'heretics', learned a
painful lesson from Galileo; that is, don't attempt to distort scientific reality with
outdated and unrealistic Biblical interpretations and church doctrines. The people
will eventually discover what is scientific reality and what is biblical myth, and when
they do, fundamentalist Christianity will be left looking foolish.

When pushed into a corner, YECs will often attempt to escape the trap by claiming
that the 'foolishness' of the world is really 'wisdom' and 'Truth' in the eyes of God (1
Corinthians 1:18-3:19). However, any group can play this lame game. In other
words, any cult can claim that if the majority of people think that they're foolish, then
according to 1 Corinthians, the foolishness of the cult must be God's 'Truth'. For
example, when shown that the Book of Mormon is a forgery, Mormons
can also hide behind this doctrine, as well as geocentricists and flat earthers. Do
YECs really want to be hiding with such company? Do YECs really want to be using the
same irrational excuses as their opponents, Mormons and flat earthers? Why is it
alright for YECs to claim a monopoly on the 'worldly foolish and divine wisdom' game and
to deny such silly excuses to the Mormons, flat earthers or any one else that has
irrational ideas in the eyes of an ordinary citizen with common sense? YECs need to
be honest and admit that their claims are based on hopeful miracles and myths, and not
reality.

Religious bigotry exists among the critics of young-Earth
creationism

Woodmorappe (1999, p. 6) and other YECs often claim
that their critics are 'religious bigots'. The YEC literature contains many
'testimonies' from YECs claiming to have been persecuted because of their religious
beliefs by 'evolutionists' in universities and businesses. No doubt, some of these
accusations are true and young-Earth creationists have been unjustly treated.

Bigotry refers to unjustified and irrational biases against certain individuals
because of who they are or what they believe. Certainly, all accusations of bigotry
must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated. Sometimes these accusations are entirely
true and the bigots must be admonished. At other times, however, certain individuals
will simply cry 'bigotry' if anyone dares to disagree with them, and especially if someone
manages to thoroughly expose their fallacies in logic, sophomoric arguments and
unsubstantiated allegations. Obviously, certain YECs easily confuse honest criticism
for 'bigotry'. That is, some YECs simply cannot stand individuals that refute their
childish ideas rather than embracing them at the altar of conversion. Still other
YECs are just plain obnoxious and simply cry 'bigotry!' when there's a backlash to their
detestable rhetoric. Unfortunately, another common refuge of fools and scoundrels is to
look for sympathy by claiming to be 'victims' of 'bigotry'.

Because of poor or inadequate training and the bogus nature of 'science degrees'
from the ICR 'Graduate School' and many other YEC schools, YEC graduates may fail to meet
the minimal requirements for science positions in academia, government or industry.
A few of these rejected candidates may claim to have been 'victims of bigotry' even
though, despite any technically legitimate degrees, their understanding of science is so
poor that they don't qualify for these positions and their interviewers know it.

In church services, people are taught to be polite, reserved, say 'peace be with
you' and hug each other. Among the YECs, hostility is left for the 'heretics'.
In comparison, scientists are taught to vigorously challenge any new hypotheses and
claims. As former U.S. President Harry Truman said, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out
of the kitchen'. Nevertheless, it's not unusual for scientists to vigorously debate
an issue at a conference meeting, but to socialize with each other afterwards.

Despite so-called cries of 'widespread persecution', there are YECs that have
earned legitimate science degrees from secular universities (e.g., Steve Austin,
John Morris, Tasman Walker and Andrew Snelling - seeA Response to a Dubious Diluvium: A Tas Walker
Creationist FantasyandFlood Geology: a house built on sand).
There are also countless examples of creationists or theistic evolutionists that are
faculty members at American universities. Clearly, secularism, agnosticism and
atheism should not automatically be equated with 'anti-theism' and non-religious
individuals and institutions should not be automatically labeled as anti-religious.

In contrast to the generally tolerant behavior of most secular schools, it is
quite clear that the ICR 'graduate school' will never award a 'Master's degree' to anyone
that refuses to embrace young-Earth creationism. Conservative religious schools
routinely require their faculty to sign loyalty oaths and openly exclude 'heretics', gays,
liberals, and 'infidels'. Rightfully, such oaths and discriminatory admissions
policies are anathema at secular universities. Because discrimination is far more
common in religious schools than secular public schools, perhaps YECs could set an example
and open the doors of their schools to religious and political diversity before they
complain about 'discrimination' in secular schools.

At the same time, from my experience, the debates within academia are not even
close to the bitter cries of 'heresy' and threats of excommunication that come from YECs
if they discover that one of their brethren is having second thoughts about young-Earth
creationism. Would YECs really claim that a theistic evolutionist has a much greater
chance of being unfairly denied tenure at a secular university because of his/her
religious beliefs than being excommunicated from a conservative church? Unlike science
departments, churches still have heresy trials for people that don't have 'doctrinally
correct' thoughts (e.g., Heresy Trial in Orlando,
Florida and UK
Church Brings Back Heresy Trials). When was the last time a physicist
was expelled from a physics department for being a Mormon or having unorthodox views about
the Big Bang or Relativity?

I recognize that there are countless geologists that are very angry with
Woodmorappe and other YECs. Why do some geologists lose their patience with
YECs? It's because we work hard to solve environmental problems (e.g., use of
radiometric dating to estimate the long-term stability of nuclear waste sites, Fleck et
al., 1996), locate oil and ore deposits and try to meet the other needs of our
society. In response to our hard work, young-Earth creationists just fill up their
car tanks with gasoline found by applying the geologic time scale and spit in our faces by
telling us that we are stupid dupes of satan for not using the Bible to find oil.
How would creationist computer scientists, like Dr. Plaisted, feel if someone falsely
accused computer scientists of routinely creating computer viruses as part of a big
conspiracy so that computer companies can sell more software and anti-viral
programs? It is not surprising that the groundless accusations of many YECs generate
a lot of loathing and anger among scientists and drive people away from
Christianity. As G. Brent Dalrymple once said at a Geological Society of America
conference: 'The creationists' science is so bad that we can only hope that their theology
is better.'

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to Woodmorappe's (1999, p. 16, 5-6, etc.) utterly absurd claims, it's the
YECs and not the scientists that are chained to oxymoronic irrationalities that rival
those of 1984and Huxley's Brave New World.
In the sinister spirit of 1984, YECs clearly claim: 'Genesis
dogmatism is not dogmatism'. 'The ruling theory mentality of Genesis is not a ruling
theory mentality.' 'You either get your geology from Genesis or satan.' 'The monolithic
interpretations of Genesis are diverse and based on multiple working hypotheses.'
'Rocks with both metamorphic and igneous minerals and textures were just created to look
that way by God.' 'Slavery to YEC interpretations of Genesis is freedom.' In
contrast, science thrives on conflict, skepticism, diversity and freedom. REFERENCES

Morris, J.D., 2000, 'Prologue,' in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth,
L.Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), Institute for Creation Research, El
Cajon and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mo, p. iii-viii.

Vardiman, L., 2000, 'Introduction,' in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth,
L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), Institute for Creation Research, El
Cajon and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mo.

Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), 2000, Radioisotopes and the Age
of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon and Creation Research Society,
St. Joseph, Mo.